EPTAre Unions Necessary in the Modern World? - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
oldgregg
New Zealand1176 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government? The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well. This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose. Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with. Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base. Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization. Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No. Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. | ||
|
ICA
498 Posts
The problem is that unions only negotiate for people that are in the union and don't give a damn for anybody else. It works like this: Unions negotiate higher wages, a shock occurs and people get laid off, now that there are less people in the union they don't care about outsiders and say that because there are now less worker every worker is worth more which gives further rise to wages; the result is that people who have been unemployed before and people that just now got unemployed will not find the jobs because firms now have to pay (unnecessarily) high wages and have no more space for employing additional labor. Sure you need a way to keep up your wage with inflation and increased productivity but if you think about it the economy would not work/ grow if this weren't happening. People would not have the money to consume and invest -> less growth. Pretty much a simple case to me. And: I agree that trade unions have been necessary in the past but in todays world we do not need them and would be better off, especially since mostly all developed countries (of which we speak here only I guess) don't have problems with inflation anymore. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On March 09 2011 18:23 Severedevil wrote: Property is an odd beast. It's obvious why a person who makes a thing should get to decide who can have that thing. But land and natural resources have no inherent owner. The traditional justification for someone owning land is the labor they put into it. ie. a family that has farmed the same piece of land for 5 generations owns it, or something of this sort. That would only determine initial ownership though, its then free to be traded. This was the rationale behind the homesteading act. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government? The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well. This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose. Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with. Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base. Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization. Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No. Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. your whole point is based on the assumption that government works for the people. many people beg to differ and even more are saying that the governmet works for the corporations. what will you do when the government doesnt represent the interest of the people? | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On March 09 2011 18:25 Grumbels wrote: Slavery has economic benefits too. %. Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor. | ||
|
Craton
United States17250 Posts
| ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
On March 09 2011 19:18 dogabutila wrote: This whole debate misses the distinction between public sector unions and private sector unions. The question is, what is the purpose of a union? How does this union fit into government? The simple answers are that unions are to fight against the employer taking advantage of them. In essence, the union wants to make it such that employees do as little work as possible for the most compensation possible. HOWEVER, in a private sector setting, the union MUST take into account the competition and competitiveness of the industry. Demands too high render the company unprofitable and will drive the company into bankrupcy. Thus the union must weigh its demands against the wellbeing of the company as well, because if the company goes bankrupt // out of business, the union loses as well. This is not true for a public sector union. What loss does the government have to agreeing to all demands? None. They don't personally pay out, they do not have a bottom line to look at (well....people are starting to care about the budget) but there is no incentive at all to NOT grant every concession possible when negotiating. Unions can never lose. Another markable difference, public sector unions can basically choose with whom they negotiate. They are active politically (which would be why dems/libs are fighting to the death to preserve union power) and have a marked interest in who they help elect. This is not possible with private sector unions. They do not choose who their bosses are, they do not choose who they negotiate with. Public sector unions is basically the government employees fighting against the government. The only goal is to enlarge government expenses and reduce productivity. Looking at this historically, public sector unions never even existed for much of the time when private sector unions were necessary. Implimentation of public sector unions was a political move designed to enlarge and empower the left wing political base. Are unions necessary? Yes. Far less so then they used to be. Much of the things unions originally had to fight for are now rights granted by law (by the government no less...) Unions were the people vs the business, ensuring they were treated fairly. Then the government stepped in and basically did the job for unions, ensuring workers rights. This is why we see much lower private sector unionization. Are unions necessary for the public? No. And they never have been. Removal of collective bargaining is the rectification of a 50 year mistake. Do people need protection from the government that already ensures that workers have rights? No. Do people need protection from the employers that they elect? No. Anybody supporting the wisconsin public unions is either out of touch with reality, blindly left wing, or does not understand the effects of a union in the public sector. Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality. You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity. Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway. | ||
|
simme123
Sweden810 Posts
Even in a modern society companies try to cut corners as much as they can but unions prevent them of going overboard in a way which is great. | ||
|
Wazabo
Italy124 Posts
On March 09 2011 23:31 Jermstuddog wrote: Your opinion is just as out of touch with reality. You're trying to argue that any public union would keep its mouth shut and watch the government shoot itself in the foot so long as it doesn't affect the workers pay-check, and that simply isn't the case. I can give you plenty of examples where unions have fought against equipment/facility cuts that don't affect the pay of its members, rather their productivity. Unions are necessary because they represent the interest of the worker. Yes, this directly conflicts with the interest of both the employer and the consumer, but without workers, nobody is happy anyway. Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 09 2011 22:55 meadbert wrote: Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor. Not in theory, at least. If you took an exact copy of the US, but every noncontributor (homeless or wellfare w/o dependents) worked slave labour for the government, it would have more infrastructure growth without a decline anywhere else, meaning a stronger economy. (Note: not actually suggesting we do this, don't want to go down that road here) | ||
|
Rashid
191 Posts
On March 09 2011 22:55 meadbert wrote: Slaver does not have economic benefits. Economies based on free labor are almost always more powerful than those based on slave labor. What do you mean slavery doesn't have economic benefits? I consider having a workforce that i can force and abuse without having to pay for as a great benefit. That's how the Pharoahs get to have their sweet sweet pyramids thousands of years ago, and thats how Nike gets to sell you shoes at a third the cost today. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 09 2011 23:38 Wazabo wrote: Sums pretty well. Plus, the workers are a big percentage of the consumers anyway, higher salaries generally means higher consumes. This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not) | ||
|
Wazabo
Italy124 Posts
On March 09 2011 23:45 SharkSpider wrote: This statement is false. Unions increase wealth disparity by diverting income from otherwise employed people to people who benefit from the unions. It's a fact that higher income means lower total percentage as consumption. This means that the net result is lower consumption, but a diversion of consumption expenditure from "cheap" goods to expensive ones. Ie, unions probably help iPad sales but hurt cheap desktop sales by a greater amount. (Assuming a union salary can afford an iPad and wellfare can net you a cheap desktop, it's an example, I don't care if it's true or not) In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business. By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side. | ||
|
Rico Valon
Germany3 Posts
nice discussion about unions is going on over here. At first i got to say that im a unionist, aswelll in workers council at the company im working in. Workers council is really accepted in this concern and its like giving and taking from each other. The biggest reason for me to be in Union is the conflict of interest between the Company and Employe! Im working in well paying company with 35h/week. And my target as unionist is to benefit from the profit of the firm im working in. This must not be money for the Workers! In germany the trade unions do a lot things e.g. - job perservation - safety and health in the workplace - conditions of employment - the take-over from trainees after apprenticeship ...... this makes life easyer for Employes and gives safety to their private life if you know you wont be fired tomorrow, you maybe feel more well going to spend your money I do know a lot of examples from Companies that neither got Workers council or a contract with a trade union And in most of this examples workers did not get payed well, have no job perservation, no overtime gets payed, less vacations.... so in my oppinion unions are really need to represent the interests of the working class but also should not forget about the buisiness objectives. Finally i got to say that i think the system how unions and workers council operate is a bit different in every country and i hope that i could gave you some good examples. greeez PS: don´t mess up because of my bad english  | ||
|
gozima
Canada602 Posts
I think the concept of Unions in great, but generally speaking, people or groups in positions of power will abuse those powers if they're able to. | ||
|
SharkSpider
Canada606 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:07 Wazabo wrote: In Europe there aren't workers who aren't protected by unions, even if a single company doesn't have its union, there are still national unions. The salaries are pretty much similar in every company in the same business. By the way the problem is not the difference between people who get 30k a year compared to who get 60k. The problem is the difference between the top 5% of the popoluation and the rest. Atleast here in Italy 10% of the population owns aprox. 48% of the wealth. The sad part is that the rest 90% of population pay aprox. 90% of the taxes. THIS is the real issue. And I guess US are on a similar situation if not even worse. Wealth distribuition is a big problem, and unions are the rapresentative of the weaker side. Income disparity and wealth disparity are hugely different measures. The latter is exclusively much, much higher than the former. Furthermore, at least in N.A., union workers' average pay is higher than the national average. This puts them squarely on the privileged side of wage disparity. If you account for the extra unemployment they bring about (in Canada estimates have been anywhere from 0.5% to 1.5% out of a typically ~10% unemployment rate), you account for the people forced on to wellfare and use that for a wage. I don't know what that would result in in Italy, but you might be surprised to see how little the rich actually impact average wages. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
My dad is the manager of a Waste Water Treatment plant and he has several workers there that are totally lazy bastards who get to work and don't do shit at all, but he can't fire them because they are in a union. He also has a worker who was in a car accident and is paralyzed from neck down, and he isn't allowed to fire her either. It's simply ridicolous. Workers have rights that need to be respected, but unions are the extremists of the western society. Unions need to be in the power of the government, because it's probably the hardest power to corrupt. Ofcourse the people that are lazy benefit from unions but overall it's just making a lazy lazy society that will whine about everything. | ||
|
pfods
United States895 Posts
On March 10 2011 00:41 Skillz_Man wrote: I think unions are stupid. They are a failed thing... I believe we do need unions, but they let the power get into their heads. Sorry 'bout the faul language, but they really bother me: My dad is the manager of a Waste Water Treatment plant and he has several workers there that are totally lazy bastards who get to work and don't do shit at all, but he can't fire them because they are in a union. He also has a worker who was in a car accident and is paralyzed from neck down, and he isn't allowed to fire her either. It's simply ridicolous. Workers have rights that need to be respected, but unions are the extremists of the western society. Unions need to be in the power of the government, because it's probably the hardest power to corrupt. Ofcourse the people that are lazy benefit from unions but overall it's just making a lazy lazy society that will whine about everything. probably the most generalizations i've yet to see in this thread. If they are in fact lazy, he should bring it to the attention of the union rep at the job. I also highly doubt the paralyzed thing, since people can fire union employees for far lesser injuries without the unions getting uppity. I highly doubt a fully paralyzed woman(requiring an aid at all times to be present)is some how working at a waste water treatment plant. | ||
| ||
